@monarchist @freepatriot is an external world, hypothesis, and I provide proof, the evidence of my senses, the success of science, the fact that we seem to agree and act as if there is an external world.
Until someone presents proof to the contrary, or falsifies "the world", I feel justified in claiming this is the truth.
Since I do _not_ claim to be infallible, I am happy to bite the bullet and admit I was wrong about the proof if evidence arises to disprove me.
Isn't this just more anti white history revision?
@monarchist @freepatriot This is probably the key issue. For me, the evidence for an external world is as simple as the evidence of my senses, or in a more formalized way, G.E. Moores "Here's a hand" argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
But since people crave absolutely, undeniable certainty, they argue themselves into some kind of reductio ad absurdum, where solipsism is the only "sure" thing, althought that can be disputed as well.
My response is to adopt the scientific method. I claim there
@monarchist @freepatriot This has persuaded 0% of the people I've discussed this with. ;)
@monarchist @freepatriot Well, compatibilism, if I understand it correctly, does that. It accepts determinism, but defines free will as acting without external force or constraint. So as long as you are free to do what you want, within a deterministic world, you have "free will", and for you, _in_ the system, it truly appears as free will, but from at the system level as a whole, everything is governed by laws. I find it a nice way to reconcile the feeling of free will, with determinism.
Americans say freedom means free food stamps.